What's truly sad is you don't think congress plays any role in the direction the economy is taking.

Oh, I'm not saying they don't, I'm just saying that there is no conspiracy, Mr. Jones. In fact, Alex, I would actually bet anything, that they didn't purposely mess up the economy.

Also, maybe you should be looking at the banks when looking for the reason the economy is the way it is. But I just read a lot of stuff from across the political spectrum that for the mostpart, says the same thing, so what could I possibly know about banks purposely setting the economy up for a fall in order to line their executives' pockets with tens of millions of dollars?

varus, I thought you were in favor of cutthroat capitalism? Breaking the system to hoard billions sounds like your MO.

____________________________

publiusvarus wrote:

we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.

This is my 10th presidential campaign, Lord help me. I have never before seen such a bunch of vile, desperate-to-please, shameless, embarrassing losers coagulated under a single party's banner. They are the most compelling argument I've seen against American exceptionalism. [...] There are those who say, cynically, if this is the dim-witted freak show the Republicans want to present in 2012, so be it. I disagree. One of them could get elected.

The House GOP, not having any real things to fill their time with and getting more and more nervous about where the blame will go in the event of a government shutdown (or a "slowdown" as the GOP is trying to call it), are instead putting out a fully symbolic resolution called the "Prevention of a Government Shutdown Act".

Washington Post wrote:

“What this bill says is it reiterates again the deadline, and that the Senate should act before the deadline, and that’s what the American people are expecting,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Wednesday morning at a news conference with other House Republican leaders. “The bill then says if the Senate does not act, then H.R. 1 [the House-passed bill that cuts $61 billion] will be the law of the land. In addition to that, it says that if all else fails, and the Senate brings about a shutdown, then members should not get their pay.”

Asked about Republicans’ “law of the land” claim, Jon Summers, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), noted that the measure would have to pass the Senate and be signed by the president in order to become law -- something that’s not likely to happen.

“What this bill says is it reiterates again the deadline, and that the Senate should act before the deadline, and that’s what the American people are expecting,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Wednesday morning at a news conference with other House Republican leaders. “The bill then says if the Senate does not act, then H.R. 1 [the House-passed bill that cuts $61 billion] will be the law of the land. In addition to that, it says that if all else fails, and the Senate brings about a shutdown, then members should not get their pay.”

Asked about Republicans’ “law of the land” claim, Jon Summers, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), noted that the measure would have to pass the Senate and be signed by the president in order to become law -- something that’s not likely to happen.

LOL GOP leaders who don't even know how Congress works.

Of course they know how Congress works. They also know how public opinion works. Obviously, they have no expectation of this passing. The whole point is to make sure that the public knows *why* the budget is being delayed by highlighting the fact that the Dem controlled Senate is sitting on it. Seems like a viable approach to me.

“What this bill says is it reiterates again the deadline, and that the Senate should act before the deadline, and that’s what the American people are expecting,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Wednesday morning at a news conference with other House Republican leaders. “The bill then says if the Senate does not act, then H.R. 1 [the House-passed bill that cuts $61 billion] will be the law of the land. In addition to that, it says that if all else fails, and the Senate brings about a shutdown, then members should not get their pay.”

Asked about Republicans’ “law of the land” claim, Jon Summers, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), noted that the measure would have to pass the Senate and be signed by the president in order to become law -- something that’s not likely to happen.

LOL GOP leaders who don't even know how Congress works.

Of course they know how Congress works. They also know how public opinion works. Obviously, they have no expectation of this passing. The whole point is to make sure that the public knows *why* the budget is being delayed by highlighting the fact that the Dem controlled Senate is sitting on it. Seems like a viable approach to me.

You mean because the GOP refuses to compromise on anything at all anymore? Because they want things "their way", and refuse to do anything else? Yep, we know.

Of course they know how Congress works. They also know how public opinion works. Obviously, they have no expectation of this passing. The whole point is to make sure that the public knows *why* the budget is being delayed by highlighting the fact that the Dem controlled Senate is sitting on it. Seems like a viable approach to me.

You mean because the GOP refuses to compromise on anything at all anymore? Because they want things "their way", and refuse to do anything else? Yep, we know.

It's interesting how "compromise" seems an awful lot like "doing everything we want and not doing anything we don't want". If it were up to Republicans, we'd eliminate about half of the non-discretionary budget tomorrow. Heck. They originally set their sights on just a measly 100B in cuts because they figured that was as much as they could get passed. They then compromised that down to just 61B.

But that's not enough? The reality is that any cuts of any amount to any program that some liberal group wants will be howled over and equated to some kind of crime against humanity. So let's stop with the ridiculous "the GOP wont compromise!" bit. The Left has saddled us with absolutely insane amounts of new spending in the last few years, but you wont compromise by letting the GOP cut even 61B? Really?

Who's refusing to compromise? And which side do you think the majority of American citizens are going to side with?

Of course they know how Congress works. They also know how public opinion works. Obviously, they have no expectation of this passing. The whole point is to make sure that the public knows *why* the budget is being delayed by highlighting the fact that the Dem controlled Senate is sitting on it. Seems like a viable approach to me.

You mean because the GOP refuses to compromise on anything at all anymore? Because they want things "their way", and refuse to do anything else? Yep, we know.

It's interesting how "compromise" seems an awful lot like "doing everything we want and not doing anything we don't want". If it were up to Republicans, we'd eliminate about half of the non-discretionary budget tomorrow. Heck. They originally set their sights on just a measly 100B in cuts because they figured that was as much as they could get passed. They then compromised that down to just 61B.

But that's not enough? The reality is that any cuts of any amount to any program that some liberal group wants will be howled over and equated to some kind of crime against humanity. So let's stop with the ridiculous "the GOP wont compromise!" bit. The Left has saddled us with absolutely insane amounts of new spending in the last few years, but you wont compromise by letting the GOP cut even 61B? Really?

Who's refusing to compromise? And which side do you think the majority of American citizens are going to side with?

Yes yes, I know you think the GOP is the only one with "principles", and they are always right. Just because other peoples principles aren't the same as yours, does not mean they are not principles. The act of governing, requires that the people get together and meet somewhere in the middle.

I see far more examples lately of liberals making moves to compromise that conservatives. The whole mantra of the GOP the last election cycle was "no compromises!". Sorry, but they have no clue how to govern.

Heck. They originally set their sights on just a measly 100B in cuts because they figured that was as much as they could get passed. They then compromised that down to just 61B.

Umm... no. They never intended to cut a real $100B. They told the Tea Partiers that it would be $100B, then Ryan said it'd only have to be $85B because it the budget wasn't as large as they had thought. Then pro-rated that to $50B because it wasn't a full year's budget. Then Ryan finally decided that $32B counted as $100B worth of cuts when you work the math the right way.

Mind you, all of this was BEFORE they released any sort of budget plan to "compromise" on. This was purely because they realized that they could never hold up the promises they made during the election. I posted about this back in February.

On Jan 31, 2011, I wrote:

The $100 billion the GOP promised to cut out of the budget has already been reduced to $50 billion. First they said the 2011 budget wasn't as large as they first though so they only need to cut $85bil. But since it'll be a short budget year, they can pro-rate much of that and cut only $50bil. So there ya go -- $100bil in cuts for the low price of only $50bil removed from the budget.

On Feb 2, 2011, I wrote:

Whoops, never mind. Ryan released his plan and now he's only cutting $32bil.

What happened then is that the Tea Partiers got into an uproar over this amount of cuts and forced Ryan & Boehner into the uncomfortable position of having to cut far, far more than they ever planned or or thought they had any chance of passing. Then they let it get cluttered with policy riders that had nothing to do with saving money (since they only mention allocation) but everything to do with using the budget to push an agenda. Now the GOP House leadership is panicking because they know they'll never get the cuts the Tea Party is demanding and they fear they're going to get blamed for the shutdown (polls put it at about a 9-14 point spread in favor of blaming the GOP over Obama).

Who told you that this was the result of some "compromise" and why did you believe them without bothering to look up any of the facts?

Heh... reading along, apparently even the GOP Senate was laughing at Cantor and his ridiculous understanding of Congress.

The Hill wrote:

The plan was quickly derided by both Democrats and Senate Republicans, however, who responded by offering a civics lesson to their House colleagues.

“My reaction to that is ultimately the whole body including the executive branch has to sign on here or we're just whistling in the wind,” Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) said.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said: “To be the law of the land, a bill has to pass the Senate and be signed by the president.”

Hours after the Cantor announcement, a House GOP Appropriations subcommittee chairman, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), said he hadn’t heard about it. Told of the plan, he laughed and said: “If we can do that, can’t we just deem the budget balanced?”

#223gbaji,
Posted:Mar 30 2011 at 6:59 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Huh?! Where? Where do you see this? Where are there liberals saying "Health care was so important to us that we'll give up spending in these areas to pay for it". I don't recall that happening. Or maybe "Green energy jobs will cost more, but we'll pay for it by cutting these other things we're doing". Nope. Didn't see that either.

Varus inaccuracies aside, the situation is a **** of a lot different today than it was then. The ridiculous overspending of the Dems and a greater sense that we need to knock that off and fast will likely result in greater blame being placed on the spenders and not those trying to cut spending. But I'm sure that wont stop 90% of the media in this country constantly insisting otherwise. I'm just not sure that the voting public is going to buy it this time.

Oh and Technogeek? I'm still waiting for those examples of compromise coming from the Dems. Cause from where I'm sitting, it looks like the "don't spend more" crowd has already compromised to the tune of like 1.7 Trillion dollars. You'd think that 61 Billion would be an easy and tiny amount to give back in the other direction, right?

BTW: This incredibly unreasonable position of the left which is why this isn't going to be like it was in the 90s.

Varus inaccuracies aside, the situation is a **** of a lot different today than it was then. The ridiculous overspending of the Dems and a greater sense that we need to knock that off and fast will likely result in greater blame being placed on the spenders and not those trying to cut spending. But I'm sure that wont stop 90% of the media in this country constantly insisting otherwise. I'm just not sure that the voting public is going to buy it this time.

Oh and Technogeek? I'm still waiting for those examples of compromise coming from the Dems. Cause from where I'm sitting, it looks like the "don't spend more" crowd has already compromised to the tune of like 1.7 Trillion dollars. You'd think that 61 Billion would be an easy and tiny amount to give back in the other direction, right?

BTW: This incredibly unreasonable position of the left which is why this isn't going to be like it was in the 90s.

You think they're actually trying to reduce the deficit? They're just using that as an excuse to cut funding to Democratic programs.

Varus inaccuracies aside, the situation is a **** of a lot different today than it was then. The ridiculous overspending of the Dems and a greater sense that we need to knock that off and fast will likely result in greater blame being placed on the spenders and not those trying to cut spending. But I'm sure that wont stop 90% of the media in this country constantly insisting otherwise. I'm just not sure that the voting public is going to buy it this time.

The Democrats have a much better narrative right now. They've offered $30B in cuts which matches the amount the GOP said they wanted before the Tea Party took over and scared the GOP leadership. The GOP is being threatened with primaries from Tea Party candidates if they don't give at least $61B and include Planned Parenthood defunding, healthcare defunding, EPA defunding and other policy riders that just aren't ever going to pass. They're frantic, trying to soothe their right flank while putting on a brave face against the Democrats. And they know that, if there's a shutdown, the narrative will clearly be "We offered the GOP exactly what they first asked for but the Tea Party runs that show now". Oh, and opinion polling regarding the Tea Party is at its lowest levels.

There's a reason for the secret meetings Boehner is having with Obama and the Democrats. There's a reason for the fractured GOP leadership where Cantor had no idea yesterday what was even going on with the negotiations. There's a reason for the Tea Party rallies going on today to intimidate the GOP leadership. There's a reason for the silly symbolic resolutions (mocked from all sides) and drive to try to convince everyone to say "slow down" instead of "shut down".

In addition to "what Joph said(tm)", let's look at WI. You know, where the pubbies said we want to make the public employees pay more of their benefits, and lose bargaining "rights"? The Dems came back and said ok on the paying more for benefits, and no on the bargaining issue. Then the pubbies put the foot down and said "nononono, it's OUR way!". Yeah, compromise...

You think they're actually trying to reduce the deficit? They're just using that as an excuse to cut funding to Democratic programs.

What percentage of the new spending increases over the last couple years do you think went into "Democratic programs"? If it's mostly Democratic programs that are on the chopping block, it's because it's mostly Democratic programs that have ballooned in cost and size and scope and have put us into this mess. I'm just not sure how that's an effective response.

#231gbaji,
Posted:Mar 31 2011 at 1:46 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Because the Dems always are willing to give back half of what they took. Stop and think about that and ask if that meets any sane definition of "compromise".

The fact that the Dems are unwilling to cut anything significant (even a tiny amount)

They've come up to the $30B that Ryan was originally asking for on Feb 2, 2011. Technically, more than that since there was $6B in cuts between the two continuing resolutions.

Quote:

Even 61B is a massively ridiculously huge concession to the political left. But that's not enough either?

In the simplest terms, if you think the $61B number was a "concession to the left", you have either really misunderstood something you heard or else you've been lied to. The $61B was a cave to the Tea Party after Ryan released his $32B number and the TP went into conniptions and started threatening the GOP.

This is why you aren't worth arguing with. You ignore things as "irrelevant" all the time. Your head is so far up the GOP *** you are lost in there. I'll go back to making fun of you rather that actually try to argue.

Further cornering in the GOP, Boehner is now trying to gently tamp down suggestions that he and the Democrats are nearing an agreement on $33B in cuts (a halfway point between Boehner's offer of $36 and the Dem's $30). Meanwhile, the Democrats are talking up how close they are to hitting a deal. In the background, Gingrich is insisting that the GOP settle for no less than $61B and the Tea Party is howling. If this falls apart now, all the Gbaji wishing in the world won't make the Democrats look like the bad guys. If it succeeds... well, have fun at your GOP tea party.

So the democrats wanting to do 61B of spending and then compromising to only 30B of spending isn't a compromise? How odd.

Huh? The Democrats spent several trillion dollars on new stuff they wanted over the last couple years. They offered to "compromise" by agreeing to 30B in cuts on things they don't care about (most of that 30B initially offered by the GOP was on conservative programs we were willing to give up funding for). The Dems were unwilling to pony up a **** thing though.

That's not compromise. That's "we'll massively increase spending on things we want and in return we'll agree to cut spending but only on things we don't care much about and if you don't go along with us, we'll shut down the government and get all our friends in the media to call you meanies!". Again, that's not a compromise. That's holding the American people hostage to the most absurd spending spree in history.

Further cornering in the GOP, Boehner is now trying to gently tamp down suggestions that he and the Democrats are nearing an agreement on $33B in cuts (a halfway point between Boehner's offer of $36 and the Dem's $30). Meanwhile, the Democrats are talking up how close they are to hitting a deal. In the background, Gingrich is insisting that the GOP settle for no less than $61B and the Tea Party is howling. If this falls apart now, all the Gbaji wishing in the world won't make the Democrats look like the bad guys. If it succeeds... well, have fun at your GOP tea party.

I don't see how the Dems wont look like the bad guys Joph. And all the wishful thinking on your part wont change that one bit. I just think that the scale your party is quibbling over is so absurdly out of whack that it's ridiculous on its face. It's a guy who just robbed you for $10,000 offering to give you cab fare halfway home and insisting that's the best he can do. Outside of the nutty liberal media bubble, everyone else sees the Dems as the bad guys here.

Yeah, I'm not overly concerned about the political opinions of someone who keeps insisting that the GOP went down from $61B to $32B as a compromise to the "political left". Somehow I'm thinking your political compass isn't quite calibrated towards north.

As for the contents of the proposals, you'll have to wait until after the negotiations like everyone else.

Yeah, I'm not overly concerned about the political opinions of someone who keeps insisting that the GOP went down from $61B to $32B as a compromise to the "political left".

Except it actually started at 100B. Remember when you pointed that out yourself and the laughed about how unserious the GOP must be because they keep negotiating downward from that starting promise? WTF?

If the Tea Party had its way, they'd simply remove all the new spending done in the last 2 years. That's their starting position. Anything less than that is a compromise. So they've compromised all the way from a couple trillion down to 61B. And that's not enough?

Even the average American can do that math Joph. That's why this is different than the mid 90s. The left isn't going to win this one. They're going to look like a bunch of people so stuck on the importance of every taxpayer dollar they spend that they're unwilling to listen to the public who has decided they'd really rather keep that money for themselves. But hey! You guys just keep digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole.

Quote:

As for the contents of the proposals, you'll have to wait until after the negotiations like everyone else.

Where have I heard this before? Yeah. That played well to the public too!

Except it actually started at 100B. Remember when you pointed that out yourself and the laughed about how unserious the GOP must be because they keep negotiating downward from that starting promise? WTF?

No, it was never seriously $100B. That was the whole joke. Ryan & Co NEVER actually expected to cut $100B in this budget but rather that they would put a "down payment" towards deeper cuts down the line. But the GOP waved $100B banner all through the midterms and got burned by the rhetoric.

CNBC on Jan 6, 2011 wrote:

"If people think we're afraid of cutting $100 billion they've got another thing coming," House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said on Thursday. "That's just a down payment."

Ryan's comments come one day after he and other Republicans said they would not reach their target of $100 billion in immediate cuts, prompting conservative complaints that they were not living up to their campaign promises.

Republicans had promised before the November elections to roll back federal spending to 2008 levels, which would mean a reduction of $100 billion from the $1.34 trillion budget Obama proposed last year.

Ryan said the actual cuts would only amount to $60 billion because the fiscal year will be nearly halfway through by the time current funding runs out in March. They also will need to cut less because the government is operating at a level at least $20 billion below what Obama proposed.

That "$60B" was later the $50B (some sources say $58B; somewhere in that range anyway) that the GOP went to, pro-rating the fiscal year. From there, they went to $32B, saying that since their starting point was lower than the 2011 budget that was in discussions at the time, they didn't have to cut so much.

Politics Daily, Feb 3, 2011 wrote:

But his proposed savings from non-security-related domestic progams and foreign aid are not as dramatic as they appear at first blush. They were drawn from Obama's 2011 budget request, not against actual spending, which is frozen at 2010 levels in the temporary budget. When measured against present spending, the trims amount to about $32 billion

Naturally, the Tea Party went ballistic over this but, this is the important part, this was all before the bill was released for the Democrats to examine. There was no negotiation or compromise with the Democrats at this point. As I said earlier, if you honestly think this is true, you're either reading/listening poorly or someone is lying to you.

Serious question: Where do you get your information from? Because you are obviously very ignorant of what's actually going on.

Ok. Maybe you're missing the whole concept of compromise Joph. My point is that their target was 100B. They were not able to reach that target and have been forced to go lower. My point is that 61B is already less than what they wanted, and what they wanted was already a drop in the bucket compared to recent Dem spending. 30B is a joke, but that's what the Dems are putting out there as their "compromise".

I'll ask again: What have the Dems actually compromised here? What have they given up?

Ok. Maybe you're missing the whole concept of compromise Joph. My point is that their target was 100B. They were not able to reach that target and have been forced to go lower.

By the budget being smaller than they anticipated. This is not a compromise on their part.

gbaji wrote:

My point is that 61B is already less than what they wanted, and what they wanted was already a drop in the bucket compared to recent Dem spending. 30B is a joke, but that's what the Dems are putting out there as their "compromise".

That's all well and good that they wanted 100B, but compromise isn't about what you want, it's about what you can actually bring to the table. What they were able to bring was 61B in cuts.

They proposed 32B and the dems said, ok, we can do 30B, no problem. Getting to the 32B number in an internal issue and certainly has nothing to do with compromising with the dems. Read Jophs post, he lays out the order of events pretty clearly.

They proposed 32B and the dems said, ok, we can do 30B, no problem. Getting to the 32B number in an internal issue and certainly has nothing to do with compromising with the dems. Read Jophs post, he lays out the order of events pretty clearly.

Except that the bill that they passed in the House contains the $61B in cuts that the Dems in the Senate are getting upset about. What internal process occurred among the GOP to arrive at that number is kinda unimportant, isn't it?

"They" decided on the current level of cuts in the current House Bill. "They" passed that bill with that level of cuts. Joph is trying to make hay out of the internal negotiating process within the GOP which arrived at the figure, as though somehow that has any bearing on where we are now.

Where we are right now is that the GOP passed a bill in the house with 61B in cuts. But that's too much for the Dems who control the Senate. All the back and forth BS that Joph is getting all excited about isn't going to matter to the public. What the public is going to see is that the GOP controlled house submitted a budget to the Dem controlled senate with an absolutely measly (compared to recent Dem spending) 61B in cuts and the Dems are so upset about such tiny cuts that they're refusing to pass the bill and refusing to do anything more than half that amount.

When they've already spent trillions of dollars and put us in debt, and are unwilling to even make a gesture to show some willingness to cut anything significant, which side do you think the public is going to blame? And no, that's really not a trick question. People see the Dems so unwilling to let any taxpayer money slip out of their fingers that they're willing to shut down the government to avoid passing what is almost certainly viewed by the public as a budget that didn't cut nearly enough. The Dems are 100% on the wrong side of this.

But it wasn't, really. They wanted to hit 100B by the end of this year primarily by focusing on the 2012 budget. That was their little campaign pledge. When the budget for 2011 never passed, they were pulled into this by the Tea Party who were screaming "You promised us a hundred billion!" Ryan tried to appease them by saying this would be a down payment towards that goal and they weren't happy. This was never a compromise with the Democrats or negotiations with the liberals or whatever you've been told it was. This was the GOP falling into a trap of their own making.

You keep making these claims that, again, do little more than show how little you actually know about what is happening.

Quote:

I'll ask again: What have the Dems actually compromised here? What have they given up?

Twenty billion in cuts over the initial ten billion they offered. Setting them right where Boehner originally offered and halfway to what the GOP is asking for now. Six billion in cuts through continuing resolutions. An agreement to at least look at some of the policy riders (albeit, it won't be any of the big ones). That was easy. Know what I can't answer? What the GOP has actually given up in the budget for the Democrats. Not what they wound up ******** themselves over with but what they actually said "We'll drop this item to meet you part way".

I'll ask again: Where are you getting your news from that you keep getting the facts wrong?